Tuesday, May 31, 2011

In his major address on the Middle East last week, did President Obama quote from the centerpiece of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky's defining work?

While hailing the Arab uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, Obama laid out his foreign policy using terminology strikingly similar to Alinsky's mantra."There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity," Obama stated. "Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be."One of Alinsky's major themes was contrasting how the world "is" and how "it should be."

In his defining work, "Rules for Radicals," which he dedicated to "the first rebel," Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda – that radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking a system from the outside.

"It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system," wrote Alinsky.This is not the first time Obama used that phraseology

A very large proportion of recent university graduates have soured on President Barack Obama, and many will vote GOP or stay at home in the 2012 election, according to two new surveys of younger voters.

The liberal left Democrats love their entitlement programs. Their good intentions make them feel good inside, and it gets them permanent voting blocks, too. But as with most unconstitutional federal programs, the opportunity for fraud is incredible.

A federal program designed to provide monetary help to families of disabled children has opened up the opportunity for children to be misclassified as disabled so that their families can be eligible for checks of up to $700 a month.

The $10 billion-a-year Supplemental Security Income program, which was originally meant for families of children with such disabilities as Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, has long since expanded to cover such mental conditions as attention-deficit disorder. As the years have passed, the number of children that have qualified because of mental, learning, or behavioral disorders has increased exponentially.

Part of the increase may be due to the likelihood that the acknowledgment of certain mental disabilities may be on the increase, but it may be that as the economy worsens many poor families are looking to SSI less to defray expenses associated with a child’s disability than to help make ends meet more generally. In the end, it may very well all add up to fraud beyond the federal government's control.

Imagine that, a federal program rife with fraud. Who'd have thunk it?

Hence, the reason why programs like this are not within the constitutional authority of the federal government. Either, these families need to take care of their responsibilities themselves, use private charities, or if the States desire to have such programs it is allowed constitutionally at the local level (without any federal funding).

A Friend of mine owns a small oil company in Texas. Dean stays in touch with me via Facebook and YouTube. He tells me that even though he has a very small company, the liberal left even considers him "big oil." The fact is, however, the myth of big oil is not what the leftist liberal Democrats make it out to be.

The image we are supposed to conjure up when the Democrats complain about "big oil" is this big fat tycoon sitting back in his E-Z chair smoking a big fat cigar that he just lit with a hundred dollar bill. He's greedy, and could care less about the high gas prices, because for him, that just means more profit.

The image, however, is not true in most cases. Besides, isn't success a part of the American Dream? Isn't achieving your wildest dreams the hopes of every American? Isn't that what the land of opportunity is all about? Why is it we dream of success, but once we see big success, we wish to demonize it, and hit it with punitive government actions?

Liberals tell me things like, "When is enough money enough?" or "They became rich on the backs of the poor," or "The average Joe isn't benefiting from the greed of those big corporate giants."

In fact, just because of the fact that the oil companies have opportunities for tax breaks as an incentive for being a business, some even jump to the conclusions that government is practicing corporate welfare with these companies.

Corporate welfare, or crony capitalism as some call it, takes its roots from mercantilism. Mercantilism was an economic practice employed by the British before the American Revolution that limited all business goings-on to only dealing with the British, and a system where the government gave preferential treatment for those businesses that played ball with the government. A similar system went into place in Italy during the fascist regime approaching World War II, where heavy regulations controlled the private industries as severely as the communists controlled theirs, but in Italy, it was done under the guise that the private companies remained in private hands - therefore the fascists claimed they were the opposite of communism, which later led to the erroneous belief that fascism is a system that inhabits the right side of the political spectrum - when in reality, it shares the left side of the political spectrum with monarchies, dictatorships, communist regimes, and other totalitarian regimes that use big government to control the private sector, and the populace.

The bailouts and subsidies so fondly used by the Democrats mirror the dealings fascism had with their own industries. Corporate welfare, and crony capitalism, with Wall Street giants, various banks and automakers, as well as credit companies, is the system being employed by the Democrats. . . as they accuse the GOP of wanting to do so with companies such as those labeled "big oil."

So yes, corporate welfare and crony capitalism is alive and well in the United States, but the mercantilists are the members of the liberal left.

In reality, big oil is not in the hands of a few powerful men with big cigars and ill intentions. Big oil is in the hands of the American People.

A report in 2007 by Sonecon shows that big oil's corporate management owns only 1.5 percent of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. The rest is owned by tens of millions of Americans through retirement accounts (14 percent) and pension funds (26 percent). Mutual funds or other firms account for 29.5 percent ownership and individual investors own 23 percent of oil stock holdings.

Institutional investors hold the remaining 5 percent.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the federal government unconstitutionally hammering the oil companies with fines, taxes, and heavy regulations actually hurts the American People because not only will government intrusion into the industry, as the Democrats are currently attempting, drive up the cost of gasoline, and the prices of other petroleum products, but it also would lower the earnings of all of those retirement accounts Americans have invested in oil.

As for the profits made by U.S. oil and natural gas companies that have been cited by congressional Democrats as reason to end tax incentives for the industry, John Felmy, chief economist with the American Petroleum Institute, put those earnings in perspective when it comes to high gasoline prices: “If you took 100 percent of the earnings of the oil industry, you’d save 30 cents on the gallon,” Felmy said.

But the myth of the big oil fat cats goes even deeper than that. When compared to other American industries, the profit margins for the oil and natural gas industry are considered to be mid-range, or 5.7 percent for each dollar, according to 2010 U.S. Census Bureau data.

What Americans are paying for at the pump is not incredible profits for a bunch of fat cat oil executives, but taxes (14% goes to excise taxes alone) and the cost of the crude oil before it gets to the gas refineries, in addition to the normal cost of doing business, which includes refining and retailing and excessive costs created by the attempt to comply with the incredible amount of unnecessary regulations.

Democrats don't tell you these things, because they have to create enemies to fight against, and if you knew the truth, you would realize that it is not big oil that is filled with greedy, uncaring, elitist pigs. Those porkers are actually the political elite, which consists mostly of Democrats.

The conservation of "rights" seems to be a notion that blankets today's political dialogue. That makes sense when one considers it was for the preservation of our unalienable rights that the revolutionaries fought for when forging this nation into existence over 230 years ago. In 1787, the founders created a new government, to replace the old weak confederacy, by writing a new constitution during four months of grueling debate. The Constitution was designed to give the new federal government more teeth so that it may be able to protect the union. However, the Founding Fathers also realized that by giving this new central government the kind of powers they were granting it, the potential for a big government that could have a corrosive effect on our rights and liberties may emerge. Such a leviathan at the federal level could hurt state sovereignty, and place at risk communities by erasing local customs and culture through federal dictates.

In some political circles, the federal government seizing more of the choices of individual Americans through federal programs that are packaged as being thwarted upon us with the best of intentions is considered progress. However, when one dissects the federal government dictates, it becomes clear that the preservation of our rights and liberties are on a backward march. Today's government of progress resembles more the system America endured under British rule, than the one designed by the Founding Fathers so that the blessings of liberty may remain secured.

To understand where the founders stood on rights, and whether or not they believed government is the provider of our rights, one must only consult the Declaration of Independence. In only the second paragraph of that founding document one recognizes that the founders believed our rights to be self-evident, and that our unalienable rights are endowed upon us by our Creator. In other words, "rights" are not given by government, or by the U.S. Constitution, but by God.

According to the Declaration of Independence, these rights are "unalienable." To be unalienable, that means that our rights cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred because they are gifts of God. The reasoning goes that if our rights are given to us by God, they can only be taken away by God. However, if our rights are given to us by government, then government can take them away.

The anti-federalists viewed the creation of the federal government as a menace, rather than a solution. They feared that the rights of the people would be in danger with the creation of a central government, because historically speaking, centralized systems grow more intrusive over time rather than remain restrained as the founders were originally intending. Without proper limitations, reasoned the anti-federalists, federal intrusion into the lives of Americans, and into the business of the sovereign states, was an inevitability. To protect our unalienable rights, the anti-federalists questioned the powers given to government, and demanded that further restraints be placed on federal power. In 1791, in response to the concerns of the anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights was ratified. Though technically unnecessary because the issues the Bill of Rights addresses are intrusions not given to the federal government in the list of enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, the anti-federalists refused to ratify the Constitution unless they could be guaranteed that additional restraints were put on the federal government in regards to personal liberties.

John C. Calhoun, a leading politician and political theorist from South Carolina during the first half of the 19th century, once said: "Government has within it a tendency to abuse its powers."

The founders believed that the abuse of power by a central government was a serious threat, otherwise they would have not placed so many limitations on the new federal government by writing the Constitution in the manner that they did. A fear of intrusive government exists primarily because of concerns over the system compromising a citizen's rights.

Individual rights, however, face another obstacle, through the constantly changing dynamic of definitions. The saying says that your right to swing your arms stops at the tip of my nose. When is it that a woman's right to choose infringes upon a child's right to live? Or when is a right not a right, but a privilege, and when is a privilege not a privilege, but a right? Does an American have a right to provide for his or her own health care through their own personal menu of responsibilities, or is health care a right that must be provided by the taxpayers because there are some that are unable to fund their own care? And if government can dictate health care, as choices diminish, when does health care stop being a right, and becomes instead a dictate by an all-intrusive government that tells the person whether or not they can receive care as based on the willingness of the government to pay the bill?

Placing government back into its Constitutional restraints has become an endeavor that some believe to be too big to tackle. Besides, argue some, what do I care what government is doing as long as they leave me alone. Sadly, most folks don't become active in demanding the federal government return to its constitutional limitations until they believe their own rights to be at risk.

The truth is, when it comes to our rights, the federal government has been continuously overstepping its bounds because those in government often believe they are the granters of rights. This is where the States come in. States should, and can, nullify unconstitutional federal laws that infringe on the unalienable rights of the American people. Those that cringe at the idea of State's Rights, nullification, and the limiting principles of the Constitution on the federal government will surely change their minds when the federal government comes to take some of their precious rights away - either that, or they will accept the arm band of some future regime while pledging their support to a nationalist system that believes collectivism is patriotism, and the nationalistic love of government is next to godliness.

My grandfather was Army-Air Corps in World War II. He was laid to rest at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California.

My buddy, Caston, was Army, served in Iraq, and is currently recovering from the time in service. Numerous concussions caused by IEDs, as well as the many fire fights he was involved in. He is truly one of my heroes.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Department of Veterans Affairs cannot bar a Houston pastor from invoking Jesus Christ in a Memorial Day prayer, a federal judge ruled in a case that is yet another illustration of anti-Christian animus in the country.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes told the department it was “forbidden from dictating the content of speeches – whether those speeches are denominated prayers or otherwise – at the Memorial Day ceremony of National Cemetery Council for Greater Houston.”

“The government cannot gag citizens when it says it is in the interest of national security, and it cannot do it in some bureaucrat’s notion of cultural homogeneity,” the judge wrote. “The right of free expression ranges from the dignity of Abraham Lincoln’s speeches to Charlie Sheen’s rants.”

Efficiency tends to be the prevailing argument for less government. We read and hear about how smaller governments are more responsible fiscally, encourage a predictable economic environment, help economies to grow, makes businesses more profitable, and much more. These things are true. Efficiency alone is a compelling argument for economic freedom, which may be a reason why it is the only one we often see. However, it could also be indicative of the times we are living in.

Morality has become subjective. “Right from wrong” has been replaced by a vast grey area in which people increasingly make decisions based on their ability to get away with something and not on whether it is right or true. Yet, in spite of how “modern” our morals, we still find it illegal to take from one in order to improve the situation of another person. The movie, Almost an Angel was fun to watch as a man who thought he had died and came back an angel, robs from a chicken store to help those who are hungry. Of course, he ends up being punished for his “good deed.”One of the fundamental precepts of a country founded on liberty – like the United States – was to make sure that the government was only a protector and not a provider. An honest umpire that treated everyone the same under the law rather than a paternal character that awarded and punished people based on subjective factors. In a country founded by liberty, government would not be in the immoral redistribution business.

This is not the case with government driven or command economies. Command economies -- be they communist, socialist, progressive, democratic socialist, or whatever -- have the following immoral characteristics:

The government is a common vehicle for theft, taking money from one group to give to another in pursuit of political, social or other objectives. The taking of money from some to give to others is little more than stealing. Just because it has exercised the power to do it, it does not make it right. Government expenditures are only "moral" when they benefit everyone and show special interest to no one. Furthermore, it must be in areas that the government is the only one that can do it. “Might” still does not make “right.”

These types of governments have monetary policies that print money to pay for government programs (inflation), which devalue all other money in an economy. When individuals or crime syndicates do this, we call it producing counterfeit money, when government does it we inaccurately call it a vehicle for stimulating economic activity. A truly capitalistic economy would depoliticize the money and link it to gold or other precious metals to preserve the currency's value. A gold standard would not limit economic growth, but create a stable economic environment and make the US dollar the investment darling of the world.

These economies create social distortions on a macro level that we would never want on a micro level. We would not want families to be given subsidies in a way that encourages divorce so the children would receive more money. We would not want to reward poverty and waste or discourage individuals from increasing their income. These types of distortions are common in these types of command economies, but are contrary to free markets or limited governments. Bubbles and busts – like our current housing situation – do not happen on their own, but are the result of distortions created by the government.

Few can honesty argue with capitalism's ability to produce jobs, new technology, better opportunities, and personal economic growth. But these are only part of a much larger economic system. I guess it is fine if one wants to reduce the merits of free enterprise to efficiency, but it sells the strengths and moral system far too short. Capitalism embodies liberty, efficiency, and morality. The most important and persuasive is its morality. Unfortunately, this argument has become absent in the war of ideas.

In November of 2010 the Republican Party enjoyed a landslide victory in the House of Representatives, in the State Houses, and made significant ground in the U.S. Senate. The GOP enjoyed this victory not because of Republican politics, or the savvy of the GOP establishment, but because of the ascendancy of Conservatism, largely due to the influence of the grassroots Tea Party movement. The liberal left Democrats would like you to think that November was a fluke, that people were confused, or it happened because the Democrats didn't put forth enough liberal programs and people voted Republican to get back at the Democrat Party. The reality is, this is a center-right nation, and the conservative voters have been silent - not because they don't care to vote, but because the Republican establishment has been putting forth candidates that many conservatives feel aren't a whole lot different from the opposition. The GOP has fallen for the liberal rhetoric that it takes a moderate to win. However, history teaches us otherwise. McCain was a moderate, and lost. Reagan was a true conservative, and won (twice by landslide).

Voters are looking for more than just conservative candidates to lead the Republican Party. Voters also desire candidates that not only "can" take Obama down in a debate, but candidates that have the fortitude and guts to actually do it. This is where the gutsy Conservatives come into play. In a head to head debate with conservatives on the issues, the liberal democrats don't stand a chance. This is why the liberals attack personally, or try to silence them through ridicule. Their strategy is to destroy candidates, not beat them fairly. If Obama had run his campaign on what he truly planned to do, he would have lost. He had to sound like a tax-cutting, careful spending conservative to win - and that's what he did.

Leaders are a special breed, and do not come easy. Conservative "leaders" must realize that leadership is not the ability to dictate as the liberal left Democrats may think, but the ability to stand for their principles despite the attacks from the liberal left, and even from the establishment Republicans. Leadership is putting principles before party, and convictions before politics.

A few Republicans have surfaced that have the guts to do what is right. One example, not that he is running for president in 2012, is Paul Ryan. The White House knows that the Paul Ryan budget is something that could hurt them drastically. The Democrats are truly frightened of conservatives like Paul Ryan. They go after him with every attack they can muster. Paul Ryan is principled, and is willing to take the fight to the Democrats. A real Reagan conservative, some might say. The reality is that the Democrats are scared of Paul Ryan.

The Paul Ryan budget has been demonized, and as expected, lied about. The big liberal fabrication is that the Medicare provisions in Ryan's budget would destroy Medicare. It is the same argument they used when they claimed racial profiling was in Arizona's immigration bill. It's not only a lie, the budget proposal actually takes careful steps to save Medicare, or at least turn it into something more viable, and less federally dependent. Under Paul Ryan's budget proposal, nothing changes for Medicare recipients age 55 and older. Then, for those younger than 55, when they reach the age of retirement, the system slowly starts making changes that include more choices, and a slow privatization of the program.

To be frank, Medicare, and all health systems funded by the federal government, are unconstitutional. But people have built their lives around the expectation of receiving these benefits, so we can't just pull the rug out from under them. The eventual elimination of these unconstitutional programs must be incremental, slowly reformed so that someday down the road they become obsolete because a private counterpart has taken government's place. That is what Ryan's plan initiates. The proposal saves Medicare, and begins the process of transforming it into something more sustainable. Under Obamacare, Medicare suffers from less funding, and the eventual absorption into a single-payer system that true to its socialist roots, would take away choice, and simultaneously destroy the private health care industry.

The Left, as is true to their nature, has launched attack after attack against Ryan's proposed budget. The problem is, the attacks are also coming from within Ryan's own party. The establishment Republicans, the liberal-light Republicans, fear and hate conservatism. Now even the "moderates" of the GOP are trying to take out Paul Ryan. They are warning the candidates not to take up with Ryan's budget, that it could be an election loser, they are trying to scare Republicans away from the Ryan budget.

Ryan's plan uses choice and competition, the free market, to lower the costs to seniors. Medicares' role in the future will be to simply subsidize plans, while putting seniors more in charge of their own health care.

As for the Democrat's, and establishment Republican's, claim that Ryan's bill is a real loser? Don't forget that the alternative, Obama's budget proposal, went down in the Senate 97-0.

The fact is, and the Democrats know this (which is why they attack Ryan's budget so heavily), that if ever the entitlement programs are eliminated, it will spell the end of the Democrat Party. The only reason the Democrats get votes is because they figured out a way to enable the public to vote themselves gifts from the public treasury through the Democrats. That's the reason that the Founding Fathers decided against putting in place a pure democracy in this country. With all the talk about our democratic government, nobody seems to realize we are not a democracy, we are a republic, and for good reason. Democracies fail, collapse, and become oligarchies under the weight of mob rule. Once the people, under a democracy, having the power of voting for all government functions without limit, realize they can simply vote themselves gifts from the public treasury, the system becomes unsustainable and collapses. The Democrats figured out a way to do that through our current system. They redistribute the wealth, giving gifts from the treasure, and the people who are dependent, and addicted to, these entitlements vote Democrat to keep the gifts coming. Without the entitlement programs in place, the Democrat Party would be no more, and we would move closer to what the Founding Fathers originally intended.

The GOP needs to move ahead with their vote to reform Medicare, and continue to push it despite any defeats in the Senate, or other obstacles the panicking leftists throw in front of them, because it is a winning strategy, it will improve the system, it will cut spending, and it will be a major step in the direction of ending the authoritarian tyranny of the Democrat Party.

The Democrats, however, aren't pulling any punches. The leftists have been indicating that the liberal win in New York's 26th district was proof that the Medicare Message is a losing one. But the New York 26 election had nothing to do with Ryan's proposal, and the leftists know it. It is just another one of their tactics. Jane Corwin's loss in New York was the result of a fake Tea Party candidate who siphoned away votes in the three-way race. And the defeat is crushing, to say the least, not because the Democrats are trying to use it as an example of how Medicare Reform is not a winner, but because it happened in what was seen to be a reliable Republican district won less than a year ago by GOP gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, who was trounced statewide by Democrat Andrew Cuomo. But, despite the truth, the Democrats are doing all they can to attack conservative ideas, and so the Democrats have credited Kathy Hochul’s victory in New York 26 to a flood of ads targeting Corwin for supporting the GOP budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan.

The liberal Democrats want you to think that Medicare reform lost. What really won in New York 26 was the typical liberal left tendency to play dirty. They played games, pulled off the win, and now insert the unassociated message that the Republican message was weak, and that supporting Ryan's budget was the GOP candidate's undoing. The Republicans, in turn, fear saying anything, figuring that if they say something it will be attacked too. The liberals have forced the GOP into silence, and it is ridiculous. Screw political correctness, screw fearing the Democrats will twist what you say into something that offended someone, somewhere, and get the messaging out there that NY-26 was a sham, a B.S. split the vote situation, and that Ryan's proposal had nothing to do with it!

Fact is, the Democrats have been doing nothing when it comes to the budget. Theirs was due last year, for God sake, and back then they had a majority. Now, Ryan is taking action, he is actually doing something about it, and the leftists are freaking out. The Democrats have offered no budget, no Medicare proposal. They are a do nothing, except move us towards socialism, party. And the fact is, they have exposed themselves for what they are, and now it is time for Gutsy Republicans, like Paul Ryan, to take charge and expose the leftists for what they are by continuing to propose, and support, conservative legislation. Make the Democrats own up to their idiocy, make them own their socialism, make them reject sound ideas so that the less-informed voters see the liberal Democrats for what they truly are - authoritarian socialists.

The Democrats don't think the Republicans will tackle entitlement reform. They have convinced the establishment Republicans that they will lose votes that way. The Democrat philosophy is to sit back and let the conservative Republicans commit suicide because they think the precious entitlement programs cannot be touched without serious injury to a campaign. In reality, tackling entitlement reform is exactly what is needed. It's a great opportunity for conservative leadership, if the conservatives of the GOP are willing to take up that challenge, if they have the guts to take it to the Democrats.

Understand, it won't be easy. It will take special conservatives to maintain their course through the poison darts of leftist attacks. The liberal left will run attack ads, and use their biased media outlets for attacks at every chance they can muster. This is not the time for weak-kneed establishment Republicans. This is a time for principled conservative Republicans to take the helm. This is a time for leaders to be leaders.

Ryan is taking a stand on fixing this country's fiscal problems. He's going after spending, is working through his budget proposal to solve this debt crisis, to stop the federal government from spending money we don't have.

The Democrats would have you believe that the conservative stance will cost the GOP votes, but the reality is that November 2010 showed us that conservatism wins. Taking conservative positions does not destroy political careers as the liberals would have you think, but enables leaders to rise to the top.

Voters respond well to politicians that act on principles, and do what they think is right to save this country.

The Republicans now own Ryan's proposal, and if they know what is good for them, they will continue to embrace it. Courage, leadership, passion, and belief. That is what Paul Ryan has shown, and the rest of the GOP needs to take notice, and emulate it.

The Transportation Safety Administration has flexed the power of President Obama’s federal government. This is same government, mind you, that could not be bothered to accept a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party for the most blatant bit of voter intimidation in the past decade. But it sure can harass the heck out of states that step out of line.

Texas was set to tell the federal government where it could put its groping pat downs of airline passengers who refuse to submit to full body scanners. The state house had already passed a bill that would make it a felony to touch the private parts of travelers and would subject TSA screeners to fines and imprisonment for such actions. The bill was moving on to the Texas senate.

Enter the TSA which issued a warning to Texas that it had better back off from its plans or else. Or else what you ask? Or else it would cancel all flights in and out of the Lone Star State for security reasons. The result of this threat? The bill has been tabled and support for it has collapsed. Let us all weep for Texas.Texas has been beaten down. How even the most mighty and once proud have been forced to kowtow to the will of a federal government which is exerting authority well beyond anything it is possesses. A threat to prevent private businesses from doing business in Texas if Texas does not let the TSA do whatever it is they are doing? I guess that is not to be unexpected. After all this is the same federal government that just recently pitched a fit about Boeing daring to try to open a new non-union facility in a state that arrogantly allows such.

Whoa! What is this? Liberty? No, no, no – the feds cannot have that. Off with their heads!

“Blogger Bob”, a courageous TSA official (note my sarcasm please) who writes in support of the TSA on their official blog, has commented against Texas for their plan. Recently he penned a silly and ill-informed remark with the particular intent of trying to convince Americans that states like Texas simply do not have the right to tell the federal government what to do because the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), “prevents states from regulating the federal government”[1].

His qualifications for his comments, as stated in his profile on the TSA’s blog, include being a singer songwriter (prior to joining the TSA), a love of ugly ties, serving in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, training to be a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Decontamination specialist, working as an Operations Watch Officer, Instructor, Training Coordinator, Behavior Detection Officer, and serving as the Vice Chairman on TSA's first National Advisory Council. Wow. Oh wait, here it is, he is qualified to comment on the Constitution and be taken seriously because he is a “Social Media Analyst with the Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs” for the TSA and he manages their blog.

Wow, with a list of qualifications like this, and having worked for the TSA since September 2002 who would ever not trust something that this man has to say?Since the TSA has sent “Blogger Bob” out to be their point man on defending their actions, let’s look at what the Supremacy Clause, which he cites as ruling this situation, actually says. Note, I am about to make people like “Blogger Bob” very uncomfortable by actually quoting the Constitution. Then I am going to do something extremely outrageous and base my commentary on the actual words it contains rather than just talking out of my posterior like some TSA lackeys apparently do.“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land” – Article VI, Clause 2Note what this actually says. It says that all laws made in “pursuance” of the Constitution shall the supreme Law of the Land. The word “pursuance” is important because it means that only laws made within the bounds of the Constitution are in fact law. For example, if the federal government decided that tomorrow it would pass a law which made all people with blonde hair and blue eyes slaves would that be an actual law? No, because the Constitution does not grant this authority. In fact, it specially states that slavery, except for punishment of a crime, is not allowed. See how this works? It is so simple a caveman can understand it. But apparently “Social Media Analysts” with the TSA are lower on the evolutionary scale than a caveman.So are the policies and procedures of the TSA indeed in “pursuance” of the Constitution?

Well, are they? The Constitution does say that that the people have the right to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” That is Amendment IV just in case you are reading this Mr. "Blogger Bob". I think one can make the case quite eloquently that searching everyone getting on every plane (by one means or another) constitutes an unreasonable act.The mindless justification for doing this is that somewhere among these people trying to get on these planes there might be a criminal and therefore all people are to be treated as criminals. I scoff at such a concept. So does the Constitution. Might as well solve the problem once and for all and lock up everyone that ever intends to fly under the auspice that we might be a terrorist. Whallah! No more problems with hijacked planes ever.

I think there is also no doubt that “randomly” setting aside a smaller group of these same passengers for even more scrutiny and a higher level of searching can clearly be seen as “unreasonable” by reasonable people. Note that the definition of random means to do something without, “definite aim, reason, or pattern”. Or, to put it more simply, to do something without “reason” (i.e. unreasonable).

Now, if you have a man who is overheard in the weeks prior to taking a flight talking about blowing up airplanes and the bomb he plans to pack in his suitcase? There you would have a reason to search him. But to run attractive blondes with nice hooters and without even a hint of a criminal record through full body scanners? What is reasonable about that?

Aside from the fourth amendment issues, which government officials from the likes of “Blogger Bob” on up to the President himself simply poo-poo, because after all, we the unwashed masses are not as smart as them, let’s look at the actual history of our Constitution.

I do not know if “Blogger Bob” is being told what to say by his handlers or if he actually came up with his sophomoric argument all by himself. But what I do know is that anyone who says something as utterly stupid as the Constitution, “prevents states from regulating the federal government,” is simply not very literate about history.

I say this confidently because the Constitution itself, by its nature, is the results of the people and the States regulating the federal government. Our Constitution is at its most basic a series of authorities we, the people, through our States, have chosen to give to the federal government. It is a series of boundaries. These boundaries are ones we have put up to constrain federal authority and to allow our national government to only to perform a limited number of tasks of such importance that they require a single authority, rather than many individual ones, to accomplish. Article I spells out these very limited powers with regards to Congress. Article 2 does the same for the President. Article 3 gives the list for the courts.Yes, our federal government is indeed tasked with maintaining our national defense and security. But this does not mean that anything the federal government wants to do, but cannot find justification for, can be lumped under this power just so the federal government can partake of said activity. It would be like if the government declared the existence of red markers a national security threat because they have it on good authority that terrorists used red markers in planning the events of September 11th. Then because of this they went about passing laws regulating red markers and subjecting anyone to random searches for the offending material. That is just silly and no one would stand for it. Well, “Blogger Bob” might.

But I am sure that “Blogger Bob” will continue to grace us with more opinions of his on the Constitution. After all, he’s from the government and he’s here to help us better understand the Constitution as the federal government wants us to understand it. This new understanding however includes the necessity that the Constitution’s meaning be rewritten to become a limitless grant of power to the federal government. This must be the case rather than, as the ninth and tenth amendments remind us, that we the people retain all powers not specifically delegated to the feds.

Hint to "Blogger Bob", that includes where airplanes and the private companies that operate them can and cannot fly to.

Folks like “Blogger Bob” think that only the glory and the power that is the TSA can make our skies safe. I disagree. I think it is clear that the airlines themselves have every interest in making sure their planes do not go boom in the skies above America. See, that is the brilliance of capitalism! If American Airlines, just as an example, has a habit of letting hijackers on board its planes and people are dying on their flights then they are going to have a hard time convincing Americans to fly on what would quickly become known as “Jihad Air”. Also, when the airlines are doing the security for their own planes you eliminate all the Constitutional questions that arise when the federal government does it.

The federal government has been lawless for years, ignoring its constitutional bounds. Recently however they have gone even further. I know it is hard to believe. But they have actually gone to tyranny and beyond.

[1] http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/05/texas-house-of-representatives-seeking.html=====================================J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn.

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington from his Farewell Address, 1796

"It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives." --John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756

Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs. Article II, Section 3 establishes the State of the Union Address, Executive ability to recommend measures, and the duty to execute the laws. Article II, Section 4 establishes the reasons the President and Vice President can be impeached for.

There is alot of confusion in this country on the election of the President, from elegibility of the Vice President to who you actually elect on Election Day. Listen tonight as we discuss, in depth, on the Election of the Executive. What is our government doing, to the American people, that is not following the Constitution? Listen here and find out!

My daughter was supposed to get married last week. Her boyfriend wound up having to go to Spain for the next few months, in connection to the efforts in Libya. They decided to wait until he returns before they get married. Be safe, Eric. We are all praying for you.

The liberal left wishes to convince Republicans that Palin, Cain, or other truly Conservative Candidates would mean a shoe-in for the left. . . That the only way to beat the Democrats is with a moderate Republican. . . and that is... patently false. Conservative News and Commentary

Log in for the weekly Blog Talk Radio summit as Doug Gibbs of Political Pistachio Radio Revolution and JASmius of Hard Starboard Radio weigh in and sound off on the political events of the day and whatever the heck else crosses their fertile minds.

...

Fair Use

~FAIR USE~ Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html") Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to douglasvgibbs@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can also Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.